Goldberg v. United States

Background

Mark Goldberg, acting as next friend of his minor children C.K.T.G. and A.S.G., filed a motion seeking pro bono counsel for the children. “Pro bono counsel” means a volunteer lawyer who represents a person without charging that person a fee. Goldberg had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees after the court granted his request to proceed without paying those fees. He stated that he continued to have limited financial means.

The complaint asserts claims under the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection protections, claims concerning discrimination based on financial burden and the right to family integrity, and a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging a lack of procedural fairness. The allegations concern an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, an interview on that application, and a U.S. Embassy’s request for DNA testing to establish the biological relationship between Goldberg and C.K.T.G. and A.S.G. The complaint alleges that the embassy did not provide an alternative way to prove the relationship and did not consider the financial burden of DNA testing.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that an attorney represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, however, a person generally has no automatic right to a court-appointed lawyer, and the court cannot compel an attorney to accept the representation or pay the attorney. Courts therefore grant requests for volunteer counsel sparingly.

The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, the litigant must show financial inability to afford counsel and that the claims appear likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers the person’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence may require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to obtain counsel, and whether a lawyer would help produce a fairer result.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Goldberg qualified as financially unable to afford counsel. It also found that the claims appeared likely to have substance based on the supporting materials and the seriousness of the allegations.

The remaining factors also favored the request. C.K.T.G. and A.S.G. are minors whom the court found unable to properly investigate and present their own case. Goldberg is legally blind, which limits his ability to assist them, and none of the plaintiffs is trained in law. The court further found that the case involves complex domestic and international legal issues and that defendants had indicated that conflicting evidence might require cross-examination.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Goldberg’s motion for appointment of counsel for C.K.T.G. and A.S.G. The court explained that the process depends on volunteer lawyers and may take time. It also stated that there is no guarantee that a volunteer will accept the case or that another lawyer will be found if the first volunteer declines. The ruling therefore grants the request for the court to seek volunteer representation; it does not itself guarantee that counsel will represent the plaintiffs.